- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
F1 Racing
- Thread starter Tony Manx
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,502
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
To me the funniest part was Horner on the radio saying "you only need one lap to clear backmarkers, so why not do that now?". Masi's response was to go beyond Horners request and scrub the one lap as laid out in rules (the rule Red Bull had just pointed out to him).
I think Masi thought he'd screwed up by not releasing the backmarkers earlier (when rightly prioritising warden safety) and over compensated. I've watched F1 since the 80s and I think I could have easily screwed up in Masi's shoes given the situation he is placed in, but I do think he got it wrong and it should have ended under a safety car.
It wont be overturned, the FIA are judge, jury and executioner here. We had crowd fatalities in multiple crashes at a rally event a few years ago in my neck of the woods. I had some close involvement in that matter and there is almost no legal consequence to the FIA at an event they run. Its almost like they are a law unto themselves for the duration of an event, even if it is on public roads. So Mercedes have no chance here as there is bound to be some kind of clause stating Masi can use his initiative.
What I am most concerned about is I am convinced Hamilton would have been pitted at the virtual pit stop by Mercedes if they didn't have concerns about Verstappen using his car as a weapon when he had track position. The entire strategy of Mercedes for the last half of the year has been to try to keep Verstappen away from Hamilton to avoid being intentionally run off the road (which favours the driver with the most championship points, i.e. Max). Even with the FIAs unveiled pre-race threat to Red Bull, it would be too much of a risk for Mercedes, as was seen by Max's entirely predictable lunge on lap which we all know he would have repeated after the virtual SC if Hamilton had pitted.
Block passes that cause evasive manouvers and sharp braking are considered bad form in motorcycling, but are permitted as two bikes can easily fit on the road. It is completely different with cars as there is no such space. Verstappen's block passes using a car involve intentionally creating situations where his opponent must choose between contact (dangerous), emergency braking and lockup (dangerous) or leaving the tarmac (dangerous). It should have been clamped down on long ago and the tolerance of this tactic is ultimately why he has won this season, in my opinion. And this is coming from someone who thinks Red Bull has done no wrong over the years but that Mercedes are cheats after their tyre scandal years ago with the previous tyre provider Michellin, after which Mercedes became mysteriously competitive.
Some of the most unpleasant memories of my life are seeing someone die before my eyes in motorsport. Someone that intentionally does block passes in F1 shows no regard for the welfare of their competitors and can never be a great in my eyes. There have been clumsy drivers with poor decision making (Grosjean etc), and one-off chancers when the stakes are highest (Senna and Schumacher) but Max is absolutely is a new breed in that he is premeditated in what he is doing, does it regularly when it is tactically beneficial and is very skilled at doing it in such a way that it is likely he will not come off worst if there is contact. If Max did Touring Cars he'd be exactly the kind of wreckless muppet who's intentionally bump into the back of rear wheel drive cars to abuse their rear instability.
Ironically, Perez's superb example of maximum controlled aggression in Sunday's race shows exactly how it is done in a safe manner (Sainz was also pretty aggro against Verstappen, but again in a fair and safe manner).
I predict F1 will stop radio transmission during broadcast of team managers (so we don't hear that) and will toughen up a little on unsafe overtakes, but by making so much run-off areas they have inadvertently created a scenario where we'll have grey areas and lawyering involved forever. If there was a barrier or gravel trap when Verstappen lunged past Lewis, and Lewis inevitably ended up in it, you'd never have had the likes of Coulthard and Brundle claiming it was fair manoeuvre (bizarrely in Brundle's case in the same sentence as using the word 'lunge'). It is only because of run off areas "for the good of the sport" that we have adopted a tolerance of the intolerable.
If I was Lewis I'd see what rule changes are made and, if not satisfied for his personal safety, I'd go and spend my millions doing something else with my life. He handled himself with far more poise than I could have mustered. An absolute 10/10 for post race conduct. Besides, he must look back at the dubious way Timo Glock handed Hamilton a ti-tle and think 'you win some, you lose some'.
I think Masi thought he'd screwed up by not releasing the backmarkers earlier (when rightly prioritising warden safety) and over compensated. I've watched F1 since the 80s and I think I could have easily screwed up in Masi's shoes given the situation he is placed in, but I do think he got it wrong and it should have ended under a safety car.
It wont be overturned, the FIA are judge, jury and executioner here. We had crowd fatalities in multiple crashes at a rally event a few years ago in my neck of the woods. I had some close involvement in that matter and there is almost no legal consequence to the FIA at an event they run. Its almost like they are a law unto themselves for the duration of an event, even if it is on public roads. So Mercedes have no chance here as there is bound to be some kind of clause stating Masi can use his initiative.
What I am most concerned about is I am convinced Hamilton would have been pitted at the virtual pit stop by Mercedes if they didn't have concerns about Verstappen using his car as a weapon when he had track position. The entire strategy of Mercedes for the last half of the year has been to try to keep Verstappen away from Hamilton to avoid being intentionally run off the road (which favours the driver with the most championship points, i.e. Max). Even with the FIAs unveiled pre-race threat to Red Bull, it would be too much of a risk for Mercedes, as was seen by Max's entirely predictable lunge on lap which we all know he would have repeated after the virtual SC if Hamilton had pitted.
Block passes that cause evasive manouvers and sharp braking are considered bad form in motorcycling, but are permitted as two bikes can easily fit on the road. It is completely different with cars as there is no such space. Verstappen's block passes using a car involve intentionally creating situations where his opponent must choose between contact (dangerous), emergency braking and lockup (dangerous) or leaving the tarmac (dangerous). It should have been clamped down on long ago and the tolerance of this tactic is ultimately why he has won this season, in my opinion. And this is coming from someone who thinks Red Bull has done no wrong over the years but that Mercedes are cheats after their tyre scandal years ago with the previous tyre provider Michellin, after which Mercedes became mysteriously competitive.
Some of the most unpleasant memories of my life are seeing someone die before my eyes in motorsport. Someone that intentionally does block passes in F1 shows no regard for the welfare of their competitors and can never be a great in my eyes. There have been clumsy drivers with poor decision making (Grosjean etc), and one-off chancers when the stakes are highest (Senna and Schumacher) but Max is absolutely is a new breed in that he is premeditated in what he is doing, does it regularly when it is tactically beneficial and is very skilled at doing it in such a way that it is likely he will not come off worst if there is contact. If Max did Touring Cars he'd be exactly the kind of wreckless muppet who's intentionally bump into the back of rear wheel drive cars to abuse their rear instability.
Ironically, Perez's superb example of maximum controlled aggression in Sunday's race shows exactly how it is done in a safe manner (Sainz was also pretty aggro against Verstappen, but again in a fair and safe manner).
I predict F1 will stop radio transmission during broadcast of team managers (so we don't hear that) and will toughen up a little on unsafe overtakes, but by making so much run-off areas they have inadvertently created a scenario where we'll have grey areas and lawyering involved forever. If there was a barrier or gravel trap when Verstappen lunged past Lewis, and Lewis inevitably ended up in it, you'd never have had the likes of Coulthard and Brundle claiming it was fair manoeuvre (bizarrely in Brundle's case in the same sentence as using the word 'lunge'). It is only because of run off areas "for the good of the sport" that we have adopted a tolerance of the intolerable.
If I was Lewis I'd see what rule changes are made and, if not satisfied for his personal safety, I'd go and spend my millions doing something else with my life. He handled himself with far more poise than I could have mustered. An absolute 10/10 for post race conduct. Besides, he must look back at the dubious way Timo Glock handed Hamilton a ti-tle and think 'you win some, you lose some'.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 4,263
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
If I could like this twice I would
At this stage the narrative has definitely shifted from who should be champion to how the FIA conducts itself and how the rules are applied. I reckon even if Mercedes do continue with the appeal it will only be to try and get some kind of acknowledgement that the rules were not applied correctly. I doubt they actually expect the result to be changed.
There have been too many inconsistent and some quite frankly ridiculous calls over the last two seasons. Spa and Abu Dhabi being the most obvious ones. While you need a race director to make a final decision it doesn't seem right that one person can override existing rules and precedent to manufacture a spectacle. As Masi himself said, it's a motor race. That's key because it's not a tv series for entertainment. Sport is a competition first and an entertainment second. Nobody would accept the ref in rugby to alter or interpret the rules in such a way as to give a team a shot at winning who were clearly losing. Races have finished behind the safety car before and while the teams may have agreed before that this was not ideal, if that's how it happened, then it happened. That's part of sport. The FIA need to have a long look at itself and the role of the race director so that this situation doesn't happen again. It does seem as though the race director is almost on his own in terms of final decisions and while Whiting was capable, Masi clearly isn't of dealing with that pressure. Should the race director be part of a group that can discuss and challenge each other? Does that happen anyway? I don't know as there is very little transparency about how the decision was made. On top the appeals process needs looking at because again it is basically the FIA holding itself to account and that never works. They are never going to be truly honest and impartial. As an example, Masi said that 48.13 (when the notice that the safety car is coming in) requires the safety car to come in. I can't see anything worded like that at all. All it says is that this is the signal that the safety car will be entering the pits. It doesn't say it must, which is one of the arguments used to dismiss the appeal. In doing so, it seems they have ignored parts of 48.12 and made up parts regarding 48.13 to support their decision.
In doing so, it seems they have ignored parts of 48.12 and made up parts regarding 48.13 to support their decision. You can't run a sport like that when you adjust the rules to suit your own agenda or viewpoint.
Further having a race director who can just change the rules is bad for the sport in general. Not only does it mean that people question the integrity and impartiality of the race director, example being that the decision was made very late after he was contacted by Red Bull over the radio, but that it makes it harder for teams to strategise and plan accordingly. If Mercedes had known that Masi would force the race to be restarted in the fashion, would they have given up track position and gambled on tyres, rather than leaving Hamilton on old tyres? Who knows? If the race director is basically all powerful and wants to create a spectacle for the fans, what might happen in future? It's a dangerous precedent. It opens up F1 to accusations of corruption and when that happens you lose fans as they feel there is no point watching anyway.
As for Masi himself, it sounds like he's got very few supporters, either within the fans or the F1 teams themselves. He was already being questioned before this and all he's done is shone the spotlight firmly on himself. I personally don't see how he can survive, but stranger things have happened. However, even if he does go the FIA still needs address this issue, because although Masi has created the situation, the circumstances that created this situation will still be there.
There have been too many inconsistent and some quite frankly ridiculous calls over the last two seasons. Spa and Abu Dhabi being the most obvious ones. While you need a race director to make a final decision it doesn't seem right that one person can override existing rules and precedent to manufacture a spectacle. As Masi himself said, it's a motor race. That's key because it's not a tv series for entertainment. Sport is a competition first and an entertainment second. Nobody would accept the ref in rugby to alter or interpret the rules in such a way as to give a team a shot at winning who were clearly losing. Races have finished behind the safety car before and while the teams may have agreed before that this was not ideal, if that's how it happened, then it happened. That's part of sport. The FIA need to have a long look at itself and the role of the race director so that this situation doesn't happen again. It does seem as though the race director is almost on his own in terms of final decisions and while Whiting was capable, Masi clearly isn't of dealing with that pressure. Should the race director be part of a group that can discuss and challenge each other? Does that happen anyway? I don't know as there is very little transparency about how the decision was made. On top the appeals process needs looking at because again it is basically the FIA holding itself to account and that never works. They are never going to be truly honest and impartial. As an example, Masi said that 48.13 (when the notice that the safety car is coming in) requires the safety car to come in. I can't see anything worded like that at all. All it says is that this is the signal that the safety car will be entering the pits. It doesn't say it must, which is one of the arguments used to dismiss the appeal. In doing so, it seems they have ignored parts of 48.12 and made up parts regarding 48.13 to support their decision.
In doing so, it seems they have ignored parts of 48.12 and made up parts regarding 48.13 to support their decision. You can't run a sport like that when you adjust the rules to suit your own agenda or viewpoint.
Further having a race director who can just change the rules is bad for the sport in general. Not only does it mean that people question the integrity and impartiality of the race director, example being that the decision was made very late after he was contacted by Red Bull over the radio, but that it makes it harder for teams to strategise and plan accordingly. If Mercedes had known that Masi would force the race to be restarted in the fashion, would they have given up track position and gambled on tyres, rather than leaving Hamilton on old tyres? Who knows? If the race director is basically all powerful and wants to create a spectacle for the fans, what might happen in future? It's a dangerous precedent. It opens up F1 to accusations of corruption and when that happens you lose fans as they feel there is no point watching anyway.
As for Masi himself, it sounds like he's got very few supporters, either within the fans or the F1 teams themselves. He was already being questioned before this and all he's done is shone the spotlight firmly on himself. I personally don't see how he can survive, but stranger things have happened. However, even if he does go the FIA still needs address this issue, because although Masi has created the situation, the circumstances that created this situation will still be there.
Thanks for posting 48.13 I thought it madness reading the decision that the safety car had to come in. What if two cars collide under the safety car (has happened) requiring to it stay out.
It does sound like Mercedes are dropping this (starting to leak) publicly for the good of sport. But honestly it's probably because the lawyers can't find out how to void single lap which is the only answer they want.
It does sound like Mercedes are dropping this (starting to leak) publicly for the good of sport. But honestly it's probably because the lawyers can't find out how to void single lap which is the only answer they want.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 6,513
Merc not protesting cause it's bad for the image of the sport doesn't make sense to me. Right now Max is already a fraudulent champion. If they would get the race turned back one lap Lewis would then become a fraudulent champion. I would rather have my guy be the fraudulent champion cause the guy with 8x ***les having a fake one bothers me a lot less than a guy with only a fake one walking around with golden boots.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I'd accepted the result wouldn't change but they should have kept the protest up to enact change. The only reason they should have withdrawn it is if the got an assurance from the FIA changes would be made because this cannot happen again. The FIA essentially said the race director could disregard the rules and make **** up on the fly. That is not how you run a school level football game, let alone a top flight motorsport. Such arbitrariness must be removed and there should be clear guidance about when 1 clause in the regulations can override another. The FIA simply asserted this was the case without any regulations actually saying this could be done. If the race director has full control over certain things then having other regulations about those that can be ignored on a whim becomes pointless.
Also general rules regarding what is and isn't legal racing, track limits etc should be clarified and consistently maintained. There needs to be a clear line between what is deemed hard racing and what is deemed dangerous racing.
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 'tarnishing image' of F1, says sport's governing body
Formula 1's governing body says the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is "tarnishing the image" of the sport.
www.bbc.co.uk
I'm amazed the FIA have even admitted there was an issue. Horner comments are pretty vile when you consider he layed into Masi after the previous race.
Apparently Mercedes have until today to file the appeal and nobody has heard a public word from them. Twitter accounts have been deathly silent including Hamilton no word even about his knighthood investiture yesterday. There were rumours they dropping in then they doubling down. I don't think anyone really knows what it going on.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,018,447
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I mean...he is
It's his first ever championship and something he's been dreaming about his entire life - you want him to be out there grovelling and apologising?
I understand him doing it but it is pending a legal appeal so its slightly odd if understandable. My only miffdness is him bringing the no. 1 car back but that's because whilst I didn't like the idea at first I quite the drivers having their own numbers. I understand the Vettel did it he had the number for 3 years at the point they introduced it.
Oh yeah and the golden shoes but Michael Johnson is the only person to pull that off in history.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 19,654
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I think Max has carried himself excellently and spoken very candidly. Tbh both him and Lewis have gone up in my estimations in the last few days.
I'm definitely happy to see the number one back, always felt Lewis not using it was very much part of his "look how humble I am, it's so impressive, I'm just the most humble man in the world" shtick.
I'm definitely happy to see the number one back, always felt Lewis not using it was very much part of his "look how humble I am, it's so impressive, I'm just the most humble man in the world" shtick.
Honestly whilst its a shtick you see the amount of abuse he gets for supposedly being the opposite you understand why he works hard at keeping it up. Anyway I don't think he had any mind of that and was looking at more US Sports ad the retirement of numbers. If he makes it like he owns '44' he could make grounds that they retire the number certainly its got the stage that anyone entering F1 after he retires feels like they'd be very arrogant to use it without his 'blessing'.
I don't know why people are thinking the amount of cars let through is a sticking point though (although if watch Stroll's on board you can see why its such a big safety issue) the bit of procedure that matters in terms of the championship is the safety car not being allowed in the same lap the cars are released. Meaning they should of done another lap under the safety car even if Masi decided to release 1 car.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
It's an issue for future events as drivers who should be in identical circumstances within the race are treated differently at the whim of the race director. That's an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
Oh its definitely a problem its just not one that likely effected the race result in terms of the championship.
